That might be very true, but the move also restricts the movement of Bf8 and does look a little passive to me.

In this varation white is one pawn down and black has an advantage.

But the simple mistake black did was 55...Ke7.

Had Nimzo did 55...Kg8, it would have been much harder to white to utilize his advantage, and probably it would have been a draw.

On My System, Nimzo annotates this game step by step but it just explain the tip of the iceberg, it is not comprehensive. And he didnt point out at all the mistake of 55...Ke7.

Not sure about the draw. It would appear that Teichmann had but to use the same winning manoeuvre. After 56.♗e5! (crippling restriction of Black's Knight!--I think Nimzo might have said something like that...), I don't really see how Black could prevent White from continuing with g7-♘g6-♘e7.

<bystander: I do not understand why white played 9) Bb3. After 9...ed4x 10) Nd4x Nc5 and if white don not want to exchange, then the bishop has to move again. Maybe 9) Ba2 (black cannot attack the bisshop there) or 9)Rd1.>

Thanks for User: ozmikey for calling attention to Edward Winter's Chess Note #6515. Nimzowitsch’s invention:

<International tournament play is not without its humorous side. The opening of the congress at Carlsbad witnessed a slight between Teichmann, who, though the best of sportsmen, invariably insists upon his rights to the last letter, and Niemzowitsch, who is classed as an eccentric. The latter, according to the London Field, provided himself with a novel contrivance, consisting of an implement shaped like a four-in-hand whip of spiral wire, adjusted to the table with thumbtacks. There was also a patent pencilholder, and the young Russian was proportionately proud of his invention. All of the masters examined the contraption with deep interest and not with little amusement. Teichmann was the exception. He declared with emphasis that the Russian’s scoring method was open to objection. For this the Field offers no particular reason. Teichmann was only placated by the concession that he would be entitled to score his moves on a typewriter machine the day he was paired with Niemzowitsch. Inasmuch as the pair met in the eighth round and Teichmann won the game, it would appear that the odds were with the typewriter.

Brooklyn Daily Eagle, 7 September 1911.>

Although I am a little skeptical about the Marshall story - since from all I've read Sultan Khan was utterly imperturbable at the board, handling every move with equal aplomb. But, let's keep an open mind.

(I do so utterly like the word, utterly!)

The story here reads like something out of a Monty Python skit - where a chess player lugs an old Remington manual typewriter to the board in order to keep his scoresheet.

But I researched it a little more, and apparently Nimzo's pen idea utterly failed to be adopted by chessplayers. However, it has found almost universal usage in banks:

http://www.newsbiscuit.com/images/2...

(Superglue was another of Nimzo's inventions - which he only used against the most scurrilous of opponents:

Take a look at "Aron Nimzowitsch: On the Road to Chess Mastery, 1886-1924" by Per Skjoldager and Jørn Erik Nielsen.

<The Wiener Schachzeitung gave a very detailed report from the tournament, day by day, and round by round. One of the daily reports contained the following story involving Nimzowitsch as the main character:

TUESDAY 22 AUGUST

The interest from numerous local and foreign chess friends appeared to be mainly focusing on the masters whose sonorous names—like Schlechter, Marshall and Rubinstein — have enjoyed worldwide reputation for years. But the other players of the tournament were also indeed quietly honored and admired. One table in particular seemed to exercise a powerful force of attraction. A metal scaffold that looked like a small gallows leapt to the eye even from a distance, but when approaching it, one of those hanging devices emerged to which it is the newest fashion to fasten a pencil. This apparatus is refreshing for absent-minded people who never know whether they must look for their pencil in their bag, behind their left or their right ear or perhaps in their bushy hair. And master Nimzowitsch, the owner of the stand, is the ingenious Russian who needs it enthroned on this table most urgently because his absentmindedness is almost as great as his Genius. He always seems to have a faraway look into his eyes and when he returns, the pencil has disappeared without trace. Precious minutes are lost when looking for it and how easily could this not cause the loss of the game due to time trouble? Now this danger is eliminated. The awareness that the pencil is always within reach, gives our Maestro a peace and a confidence which must fill his opponents with misgiving. Rabinowitsch was the victim yesterday. This excellent expert from Vilnius had defended himself brilliantly and, although having Black, almost obtained a superior position. This position however, gradually evaporated and Nimzowitsch won the game after a most exciting and instructive fight that lasted for about six hours [Wiener Schachzeitung, 1911, page 269; author's translation].>

pp. 148-49: https://books.google.com.br/books?i...

Erratum: When transcribing the item from the Brooklyn Daily Eagle, I skipped the word <clash>: http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/...

In this varation white is one pawn down and black has an advantage.

What about 26) ...Rde8 27) ef5x, Bf5x 28) Nf5x, Qf5x 29) Te7x Te7x 30) Bg3 d5 31) Qd2? But black still has an advantage.

click for larger view

Nimzowitch writes in his comments (My System) "52...Kf7 would have been met by the unpleasant 53.fxg6 Kxg6 54.Nf4+". Unpleasant, sure, but is this actually lost? The game continuation looks to be so.
It seems that he had already mentally resigned this game.